Indo-European origins

bicicleur 2

Regular Member
Messages
6,367
Reaction score
1,401
Points
113
There are 2 known hypothesis : the Anatolian hypothesis and the Pontic steppe origin.

I believe the Indoeuropeans originated on the Pontic steppe.
The Maykop culture were IMO non-Indoeuropean people who were very important for the development of the Indoeuropean culture and their metalurgical knowhow.

Now there are some people with a 3rd theory. They believe the origin of Indoeuropeans lies in the Leyla-Tepe_culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture) which would be ancestral to Maykop culture.

This would mean the Pontic steppe was only the second urheimat :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture

[h=3]Anatolian theory[edit][/h]Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, whose views are somewhat controversial, suggest that the Maykop culture (or its ancestor) may have been a way-station for Indo-Europeans migrating from the South Caucasus and/or eastern Anatolia to a secondary Urheimat on the steppe. This would essentially place the Anatolian stock in Anatolia from the beginning, and at least in this instance, agrees with Colin Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis. Considering that some attempt has been made to unite Indo-European with the Northwest Caucasian languages, an earlier Caucasian pre-Urheimat is not out of the question (see Proto-Pontic). However, most linguists and archaeologists consider this hypothesis incorrect, and prefer the Eurasian steppes as the genuine IE Urheimat.

I don't believe this 3rd theory for following reasons :

- horses were allready very important on the Pontic steppe and probably to a certain degree domesticated before the arrival of Maykop culture
it is with these horses that Indoeuropean people overpowered the people of Maykop culture and of other cultures later on.

- the pottery of the Indoeuropean people is of the 'Samara-type' which entered Europe 9000 years ago across the Ural , from Siberia and Chinese origin, 20000 years old. This pottery contrasts with the pottery originating from the middle east.

I would like you view and arguments on this.
 
1) the Renfrew hypothesis suggest a clear agricultural population,
the Anatolian hypothesis of renfrew believes that was IE language was the neolithic farmers
the Renfrew hypothesis does not cognate with Arsenic bronze road.

2) the gold mettalurgy and chariot expansion show a tottal different road than of Gibutas Kurgan's.
steppe people may domesticate horse, but chariots was not their favorite.

3) The Arzawa/Assuwa (If IE) case as also the Anatolian origin of Tocharian? pre or after indo-Hettit?
 
Last edited:
Just generally, it all depends upon the point in time you're examining. If you're talking about a complete "Indo-European package" neolithicized, with language, metallurgy, chariots, horses, you're probably talking about the Pontic Caspian steppe at a relatively late period.

The fact is that I've always thought that people have attempted to simplify a complex people of complex origins, with technology from various cultures, into some single, ethnically "pure" group who dropped out of the sky and created their culture and language magically with no outside influences. I don't think that's how it worked. Rather, they remind me of the Normans...they intermarried with and borrowed madly from every culture with which they came into contact, and as a result prospered and expanded, and then influenced other groups.

Of course, it may also be that they expanded because they were a particularly nasty and aggressive sort. I prefer to think not. I am not the type of person who would ever gleefully and proudly proclaim that my y dna ancestors clubbed to death the males in the cultures they encountered. (And there you have why this hobby is not totally respectable and the sites which discuss it are often blocked.)

If Corded Ware is indeed an early Indo-European culture, it is 1000 years and a long way away from the first chariots.
 
Just generally, it all depends upon the point in time you're examining. If you're talking about a complete "Indo-European package" neolithicized, with language, metallurgy, chariots, horses, you're probably talking about the Pontic Caspian steppe at a relatively late period.

The fact is that I've always thought that people have attempted to simplify a complex people of complex origins, with technology from various cultures, into some single, ethnically "pure" group who dropped out of the sky and created their culture and language magically with no outside influences. I don't think that's how it worked. Rather, they remind me of the Normans...they intermarried with and borrowed madly from every culture with which they came into contact, and as a result prospered and expanded, and then influenced other groups.

Of course, it may also be that they expanded because they were a particularly nasty and aggressive sort. I prefer to think not. I am not the type of person who would ever gleefully and proudly proclaim that my y dna ancestors clubbed to death the males in the cultures they encountered. (And there you have why this hobby is not totally respectable and the sites which discuss it are often blocked.)

If Corded Ware is indeed an early Indo-European culture, it is 1000 years and a long way away from the first chariots.

I definitely agree with the importance of being specific about the time frame and cultural context. It does seem as if the Corded Ware folk, for example, may have been the first people to bring Y haplotype R1a (and possibly ANE) to Europe, but their culture certainly doesn't seem to be Indo-European and we don't know what language they spoke.

As for Indo-Europeans and violence, I'd prefer to think that my Y haplotype I ancestors didn't survive by switching sides and joining up with a bunch of psychotic criminal types on horseback. But the Indo-Europeans do seem to have been the first people to really focus on using bronze for weapon making, so it doesn't seem likely they were pacificists.
 
I definitely agree with the importance of being specific about the time frame and cultural context. It does seem as if the Corded Ware folk, for example, may have been the first people to bring Y haplotype R1a (and possibly ANE) to Europe, but their culture certainly doesn't seem to be Indo-European and we don't know what language they spoke.

As for Indo-Europeans and violence, I'd prefer to think that my Y haplotype I ancestors didn't survive by switching sides and joining up with a bunch of psychotic criminal types on horseback. But the Indo-Europeans do seem to have been the first people to really focus on using bronze for weapon making, so it doesn't seem likely they were pacificists.

the question is who were the first speakers of some proto-indoeuropean language
and what tribe (haplgroup) were they

the fact that they could impose there language usualy means that they get the upperhand, being part of the elite

as for corded ware, some are supposed to have spread the proto-Baltic and proto-Slavic languages, so I'd say they were Indo-European
further west, in Scandinavia and northwest Europe they probably spread other Indo-European languages that were later replaced by Celtic/Germanic languages

as for horses and bronze weapons, it helped indo-europeans to split the skuls of others, but it also prevented others to break their skuls with their wooden clubs
violence existed allready in mesolithic and neolithic Europe , as it existed elsewhere in the world

it was simply the strongest who ruled
maybe it's politicaly correct to deny this and praise pacifism, but it isn't correct because it ain't the truth
in these days pacifism was total subjection to the master because there were no alternatives
 
Since the first speakers of Indo-European were not literate, any assignment of their language to a specific group is obviously going to be based on the possession by the group in question of certain cultural traits. Opinions will, and have, differed.

Violence, in domestic circumstances, in crime, and in war has always been part of human society so far as I can tell. However, all cultures at all times are not morally equivalent in terms of their violent behavior. Specifically in terms of war and invasion, not all cultures exterminate all the males of the areas they conquer.

Most importantly, the fact that something exists and has existed in human society since time immemorial doesn't mean I have to abdicate my moral judgment about it. Also, one doesn't have to be a pacifist, which I'm not for what it's worth, to find that mass genocide is morally objectionable. So no, while obviously we're not responsible for the behavior of our ancestors, I personally wouldn't be happy to learn that my father's ydna stems from a line that practiced genocide on a massive scale.

I think the more pertinent question is why on earth in this day and age someone would be happy to discover that...

Ed. I want to be clear that I'm not aware of any evidence that this in fact happened. Nor am I saying that any one on this Board is celebrating such a thing.
 
Since the first speakers of Indo-European were not literate, any assignment of their language to a specific group is obviously going to be based on the possession by the group in question of certain cultural traits. Opinions will, and have, differed.

Violence, in domestic circumstances, in crime, and in war has always been part of human society so far as I can tell. However, all cultures at all times are not morally equivalent in terms of their violent behavior. Specifically in terms of war and invasion, not all cultures exterminate all the males of the areas they conquer.

Most importantly, the fact that something exists and has existed in human society since time immemorial doesn't mean I have to abdicate my moral judgment about it. Also, one doesn't have to be a pacifist, which I'm not for what it's worth, to find that mass genocide is morally objectionable. So no, while obviously we're not responsible for the behavior of our ancestors, I personally wouldn't be happy to learn that my father's ydna stems from a line that practiced genocide on a massive scale.

I think the more pertinent question is why on earth in this day and age someone would be happy to discover that...

Ed. I want to be clear that I'm not aware of any evidence that this in fact happened. Nor am I saying that any one on this Board is celebrating such a thing.

I take your point. And my joke about pacifists wasn't meant literally. Yes, violence has always been with us, but some cultures have specialized in it to a point of being creepy, and only psychopaths celebrate that fact. And it does seem quite likely that we would have some serious moral qualms about the behaviour of Indo-Europeans. However, the extent to which they exterminated rather than killing only those who resisted doesn't seem quite clear to me, and may have varied over time and circumstance. For example, my I1 haplotype is still fairly common in some parts of Europe.
 
we will never know, but there is no proof that indoeuropeans commited genocides , I believe e.g. 'civilized' Romans did far worse
it is human nature to dominate when oportunity comes
Marija Gimbutas kind of demonised indoeuropeans comparing them to 'peaceful old europe' which now seems quite a naive story

indeed haplo I and especially haplo I1 is still fairly common
I1 seems to have thrived since late neolithic/early bronze
other neolithic haplogroups (G, J, T, E1b1) seem to have declined
some tribes could cope better with indoeuropeans than others
why? it's an intriguing question

i'm a bit of topic now ..
 
we will never know, but there is no proof that indoeuropeans commited genocides , I believe e.g. 'civilized' Romans did far worse
it is human nature to dominate when oportunity comes
Marija Gimbutas kind of demonised indoeuropeans comparing them to 'peaceful old europe' which now seems quite a naive story

indeed haplo I and especially haplo I1 is still fairly common
I1 seems to have thrived since late neolithic/early bronze
other neolithic haplogroups (G, J, T, E1b1) seem to have declined
some tribes could cope better with indoeuropeans than others
why? it's an intriguing question

i'm a bit of topic now ..


I believe I already stated that there is no proof that the Indo-Europeans committed any mass genocide of the males of central Europe. However, it certainly seems to be claimed and celebrated by a number of people with an interest in genetics, including a prominent blogger. So perhaps if you feel it is a calumny you might think about taking it up with them, and not with me.

I also believe I already stated that violence seems to be an endemic part of human nature. Perhaps you missed that part of my post.

And for the record, I find it extremely annoying that every time I post about ancient history or population genetics in a way that presents facts which might somehow be construed to put the Indo-Europeans, or any group north of the Alps, for that matter, in less than the most flattering of lights, certain posters seem compelled to post a comment about the supposedly dastardly deeds of the Romans.

Leaving aside the fact that as ancient empires go they were a rather tolerant and inclusive bunch, in my opinion, so long as you didn't oppose them and paid your taxes promptly, (which I think is part of the reason that their empire lasted for 1000 years) I am not responsible for the deeds of my ancestors, and I do not hold other people responsible for the deeds of theirs...I find this kind of tit for tat rather childish.

It also may have escaped your attention that Italians, particularly north and central Italians, have a rather high percentage of ydna "R1b-M69" lineages, lineages which currently seem to be viewed as "Indo-European". So, these Indo-Europeans, whatever their deeds or misdeeds, are, through my paternal line, at least in part also my ancestors. When I said that I would be sorry to discover that my father's ydna line was responsible for any mass genocides, I was speaking quite literally. Then there is my mtDna, U2e, which also seems to have Indo-European associations. The Indo-Europeans got around.
 
There are more than 2 theories. A much stronger scenario than the Anatolian hypothesis is in my opinion an Iranian Plateau, Mesopotamian origin.
 
I believe I already stated that there is no proof that the Indo-Europeans committed any mass genocide of the males of central Europe. However, it certainly seems to be claimed and celebrated by a number of people with an interest in genetics, including a prominent blogger. So perhaps if you feel it is a calumny you might think about taking it up with them, and not with me.

I also believe I already stated that violence seems to be an endemic part of human nature. Perhaps you missed that part of my post.

And for the record, I find it extremely annoying that every time I post about ancient history or population genetics in a way that presents facts which might somehow be construed to put the Indo-Europeans, or any group north of the Alps, for that matter, in less than the most flattering of lights, certain posters seem compelled to post a comment about the supposedly dastardly deeds of the Romans.

Leaving aside the fact that as ancient empires go they were a rather tolerant and inclusive bunch, in my opinion, so long as you didn't oppose them and paid your taxes promptly, (which I think is part of the reason that their empire lasted for 1000 years) I am not responsible for the deeds of my ancestors, and I do not hold other people responsible for the deeds of theirs...I find this kind of tit for tat rather childish.

It also may have escaped your attention that Italians, particularly north and central Italians, have a rather high percentage of ydna "R1b-M69" lineages, lineages which currently seem to be viewed as "Indo-European". So, these Indo-Europeans, whatever their deeds or misdeeds, are, through my paternal line, at least in part also my ancestors. When I said that I would be sorry to discover that my father's ydna line was responsible for any mass genocides, I was speaking quite literally. Then there is my mtDna, U2e, which also seems to have Indo-European associations. The Indo-Europeans got around.

maybe you should start another thread about this, Angela i'll be happy to contribute
 
Some questions.
No massive invasion into Sapta Sindhu has been shown, either ancient written texts or archeological evidence ie, horses, weapons, Kurgan burial mounds.
Why does Vedic have only Munda and Dravidian incorporated. An invading proto-PIE language should also show evidence of Proto Kartvelian languages and Proto Uralic language family ?
Tocharian is related to Italic/Celtic and was the second to break away after Hittite, before Italic/Celtic/Germanic; they had terms for domesticated pig and agricultural grain. How can these intrusive terms be explained, when the Saka did not have them and yet both groups originated from a common PIE homeland ?

Albanian-Armenian-sometimes Greek could be considered isolate with no other extant language
There is not one single common branch of R1a found among Kosovo Albanians- Armenians-Greeks, yet all three have ANE and R1a in 0-5%. How is this possible if originating from a common PIE homeland?
 
concerning violence:
in the heath of the battle surely more than a slaughter occurred whatever the winner I-Ean or not -
but I doubt barbar warriors killed EVERYTIME ALL the defeated males after the victory -
concerning the I-Ean warriors-pastors come from the Steppes into Eastern Europe (Carpathian Bassin and other places too) very often we see them taking the lands needed for their breeding (hills grassy slopes) and not occupying a whole territory - new physical types appeared at some time very quickly in some regions they were absorbed giving a crossing far from in equilibrium as it should have been if they had killed all the male population surrounding them! the Corded Ware people, in the Netherlands, took sometimes the bad sandy lands, taking no advantage over the megalithical people of the shores (Funnelbeaker/Amphores people with a strong heritage from Long Barrows or akin people, surely smart enough themselves) -
I know some people are found of heroic warriors with some sadic tendancies, and sometimes they were like that, but I think the winners when their conquest was total were glad to have some solid male slaves and peasants families; without kill all the males they had just to deprive them of sexual contacts with females and to take these females for themselves (what is egoistic and not to respectuous for these females!) and this occurred surely more than a time, but even like that I suppose this system was not complete...
sure, the today very contrasted distribution of Y-HaploGs compared to mt-DNA HaploGs distribution proves some "male" prerogatives of winners
I've not the time to give my point about other posts (question of R1a and Greeks and so on...) but i'll do soon
good night all of you (night can send some sagacity)
 
Some questions.
No massive invasion into Sapta Sindhu has been shown, either ancient written texts or archeological evidence ie, horses, weapons, Kurgan burial mounds.
Why does Vedic have only Munda and Dravidian incorporated. An invading proto-PIE language should also show evidence of Proto Kartvelian languages and Proto Uralic language family ?
Tocharian is related to Italic/Celtic and was the second to break away after Hittite, before Italic/Celtic/Germanic; they had terms for domesticated pig and agricultural grain. How can these intrusive terms be explained, when the Saka did not have them and yet both groups originated from a common PIE homeland ?

Albanian-Armenian-sometimes Greek could be considered isolate with no other extant language
There is not one single common branch of R1a found among Kosovo Albanians- Armenians-Greeks, yet all three have ANE and R1a in 0-5%. How is this possible if originating from a common PIE homeland?

Albanian, Armenian and Greek are all independent branches of the Indo-European language group, not language isolates. And I see no reason why the language of the Vedic invaders of India should have had loan words from Proto-Kartvelian or Proto-Uralic languages.
 
Speaking of violence and y hg replacement. I believe not only local haplos were replaced largely but also most of IE paternal lines were replaced by few of IE paternal lines (the royal, elite) lineages. Is there a new (relatively new) R1b subclade that originated already in Europe and now is wide spread? If so, it must have come from one royal/chieftain person with this new mutation.
 
There is not one single common branch of R1a found among Kosovo Albanians- Armenians-Greeks, yet all three have ANE and R1a in 0-5%. How is this possible if originating from a common PIE homeland?

Kosovo-Albanians are very indigenous to the area, most of their lineages survived in isolate mountain areas, so probably they're largely unmixed with Indo-Europeans. Albania-Albanians have some 12-15% R1a and no East-European autosomal component on 23AndMe, so that's a sign of a very early IE spread.
 
we will never know, but there is no proof that indoeuropeans commited genocides , I believe e.g. 'civilized' Romans did far worse
it is human nature to dominate when oportunity comes
Marija Gimbutas kind of demonised indoeuropeans comparing them to 'peaceful old europe' which now seems quite a naive story

indeed haplo I and especially haplo I1 is still fairly common
I1 seems to have thrived since late neolithic/early bronze
other neolithic haplogroups (G, J, T, E1b1) seem to have declined
some tribes could cope better with indoeuropeans than others
why? it's an intriguing question

i'm a bit of topic now ..

the M Gibutas case is it compatible with Varna necropolis?

I mean gold mettalurgy is older than bronze weapons,
and follows tottaly different way,
 
Some questions.
No massive invasion into Sapta Sindhu has been shown, either ancient written texts or archeological evidence ie, horses, weapons, Kurgan burial mounds.
Why does Vedic have only Munda and Dravidian incorporated. An invading proto-PIE language should also show evidence of Proto Kartvelian languages and Proto Uralic language family ?
Tocharian is related to Italic/Celtic and was the second to break away after Hittite, before Italic/Celtic/Germanic; they had terms for domesticated pig and agricultural grain. How can these intrusive terms be explained, when the Saka did not have them and yet both groups originated from a common PIE homeland ?

Albanian-Armenian-sometimes Greek could be considered isolate with no other extant language
There is not one single common branch of R1a found among Kosovo Albanians- Armenians-Greeks, yet all three have ANE and R1a in 0-5%. How is this possible if originating from a common PIE homeland?

I will answer for Greeks,

Greece has a quite good amount of R1a,
many consider it Slavic but that creates a paradox,
in NorthCentral Greece reach 21-24% which is higher than Serbia Albania Makedonia Bulgaria Romania (don't rember if bosnia also) the closest high R1a is Croatia which is far away.
the 5 Slavic clans that entered Greece are not in the core of that R1a
the paradox is if we consider Greek R1a as Slavic means that these people after slavicise all the balkans finally hellenized!!!!
I mean they came from Ukraine and Moravia above Danub just to end up as greeks?

also the R1a in Greece follows the road of Dorians and their colonies
21-24% in Central North Greece
12-14% in Doris/da
8-10 % in Lokri italy etc etc

the R1a in Greece is a big story,
which for many is Slavic and for others came at withe IE from Danube 3000 years before Slav.

that is beacause R1a is upsent in many Greek places like Crete
while Mycenean r1b exist
 
Albanian, Armenian and Greek are all independent branches of the Indo-European language group, not language isolates.
Do Albanian, Armenian, Greek derive from the same source; PIE ? If yes, can you show evidence of a common ydna-snp within all three independent branches which derive from the same source ?
SLRD-map.jpg







And I see no reason why the language of the Vedic invaders of India should have had loan words from Proto-Kartvelian or Proto-Uralic languages.
Does PIE contain loan words from Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Uralic.? If yes, were they incorporated before or after the migration of the Vedic invaders? Once they settled in, they incorporated Proto-Munda and Dravidian loanwords to Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Uralic ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum_in_Vedic_Sanskrit
 
I will answer for Greeks,

Greece has a quite good amount of R1a,
many consider it Slavic but that creates a paradox,
in NorthCentral Greece reach 21-24% which is higher than Serbia Albania Makedonia Bulgaria Romania (don't rember if bosnia also) the closest high R1a is Croatia which is far away.
the 5 Slavic clans that entered Greece are not in the core of that R1a
the paradox is if we consider Greek R1a as Slavic means that these people after slavicise all the balkans finally hellenized!!!!
I mean they came from Ukraine and Moravia above Danub just to end up as greeks?

also the R1a in Greece follows the road of Dorians and their colonies
21-24% in Central North Greece
12-14% in Doris/da
8-10 % in Lokri italy etc etc

the R1a in Greece is a big story,
which for many is Slavic and for others came at withe IE from Danube 3000 years before Slav.

that is beacause R1a is upsent in many Greek places like Crete
while Mycenean r1b exist

that makes sense
IMO Myceneans, Ilyyrians, Prhrygians, Armenians .. were the last R1b coming from the steppe, they were ousted by R1a Srubnic culture which became known as Cimmerians
all tribes that arrived later were mainly R1a mixed with I2a1b
 

This thread has been viewed 32290 times.

Back
Top